12 minutes ago, Norell said:

Call me Laya Whoregana. I liked that Umbara adventure by the way. Something in that dark planets made me tingling....

"Mike", I'm still not sold on day 1 lynching. What if we accidentally kill someone important by accident? Let's say half of the people have roles. If we randomly kill someone there is a 3:2 chance to kill a supportive role. Isn't that a greater loss?

That's the point of the claim. If we're about to lynch someone, they claim and if we believe them, they live. So we should have no real fear of lynching a power role. Granted, it happened two games ago, but still, now that we've learned from that time, I doubt it'll happen again.

10 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

So we still have Truthiness against the day one hammer....even after all the discussion and proof that it is better for the town. That is suspicious. Norell is also against the hammer, which is....suspicious. However, I pushed for a hammer on Norell last game for that same reason and he was town, so I'm willing to overlook this a little more now.

For me, Biggs's explanation really doesn't quite sit right, even though it makes a lot of sense. He's either quite experienced as passing himself off as town while being scum, or he really is town. Something to keep an eye on, but not vote-able for me yet.

Ghost either made an extremely lucky/perceptive logic jump, or is trying to push something over on to Biggs. I think flavor will play a big role in this game, or at least I hope it will.

Truth be told, I was half joking, thinking it too good a coincidence. But it may yet be true. I doubt it though. I'm certainly not trying to frame Biggs.

46 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

So we still have Truthiness against the day one hammer....even after all the discussion and proof that it is better for the town. That is suspicious. Norell is also against the hammer, which is....suspicious. However, I pushed for a hammer on Norell last game for that same reason and he was town, so I'm willing to overlook this a little more now.

For me, Biggs's explanation really doesn't quite sit right, even though it makes a lot of sense. He's either quite experienced as passing himself off as town while being scum, or he really is town. Something to keep an eye on, but not vote-able for me yet.

Ghost either made an extremely lucky/perceptive logic jump, or is trying to push something over on to Biggs. I think flavor will play a big role in this game, or at least I hope it will.

Long time ago in a planet far far away...

A farmer village had issues with some local scum. The people discussed a lot about if they needed new laws to punish or not. The goodies, as they were goodies and had nothing to hide wanted more restrictive laws. Few of them didn't. Do you know what? One of the freedom-at-all-cost lobby was scum. The clever village almost execute him and it would be good.

However, now we know and they know we know and we know they know we know they aaargh!!

Head started to boil.

Yeah, that's the problem about trying to use other games as a benchmark; it just adds to the mind games.

1 hour ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

So we still have Truthiness against the day one hammer....even after all the discussion and proof that it is better for the town. That is suspicious. Norell is also against the hammer, which is....suspicious. However, I pushed for a hammer on Norell last game for that same reason and he was town, so I'm willing to overlook this a little more now.

For me, Biggs's explanation really doesn't quite sit right, even though it makes a lot of sense. He's either quite experienced as passing himself off as town while being scum, or he really is town. Something to keep an eye on, but not vote-able for me yet.

Ghost either made an extremely lucky/perceptive logic jump, or is trying to push something over on to Biggs. I think flavor will play a big role in this game, or at least I hope it will.

Oh yay, random flailing again. As with last game, I've yet to see a shred of evidence that a day one hammer does a damned thing. I'm not experienced in the slightest with this, but so far I've seen a game lose with a day some hammer and a game won without a day one hammer.

But sure, I'll defer to the more experienced players. I will stand by my promise to hammer myself if the town decides to be stupid.

1 hour ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

That's the point of the claim. If we're about to lynch someone, they claim and if we believe them, they live. So we should have no real fear of lynching a power role. Granted, it happened two games ago, but still, now that we've learned from that time, I doubt it'll happen again.

And then you've exposed a power role to a night kill. Yay.

13 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

Oh yay, random flailing again. As with last game, I've yet to see a shred of evidence that a day one hammer does a damned thing. I'm not experienced in the slightest with this, but so far I've seen a game lose with a day some hammer and a game won without a day one hammer.

But sure, I'll defer to the more experienced players. I will stand by my promise to hammer myself if the town decides to be stupid.

Really? "random flailing"....I'm very clearly pointing out potential suspicious behavior. Just like Tirion last game, trying to pass of my calculated behavior as "random flailing" is in itself suspicious. And with your insistence against the day one hammer, despite evidence to the contrary, you are forcing me to take matters into my own hands.

##vote Truthiness

16 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

Oh yay, random flailing again. As with last game, I've yet to see a shred of evidence that a day one hammer does a damned thing. I'm not experienced in the slightest with this, but so far I've seen a game lose with a day some hammer and a game won without a day one hammer.

But sure, I'll defer to the more experienced players. I will stand by my promise to hammer myself if the town decides to be stupid.

Agree but that is far to mean that those games were won/lost cause the day 1 hammer.

26 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

Oh yay, random flailing again. As with last game, I've yet to see a shred of evidence that a day one hammer does a damned thing. I'm not experienced in the slightest with this, but so far I've seen a game lose with a day some hammer and a game won without a day one hammer.

But sure, I'll defer to the more experienced players. I will stand by my promise to hammer myself if the town decides to be stupid.

Erm... it's not all random, it's an attempt to analyze all evidence we have up to now to try to clear a bit the image of who is loyal is who is a traitor, and right now you consistently trying to undermine this attempt may well come against you when we do that further on.

In simpler words: You are looking suspicious, so I'm keeping an eye open for your posts

24 minutes ago, Visovics said:

In simpler words: You are looking suspicious, so I'm keeping an eye open for your posts

Biggs’ Big Scum List

Totally Town:
Onidsen - Quietish, but still feels townie. Good numbers on Day 1 voting. More gut feeling than reasoning here.

Fortutiously Friendly:
Truthiness - I appreciate that he was willing to start a honeypot on himself when I was already doing a honeypot. Unfortunate that we cancelled one another out. Gut says town, brain has niggling questions.
GhostofNobodyInParticular - Good line of questioning, even if it was directed at me. Feels like he’s pushing the investigations forward.

Nauseatingly Neutral:
Visovics - Hasn’t done much since defending Day 1 Investigative Voting.
Ovinomanc3r - Not quite sure what to make of him yet. Dig deeper.
Norell - Against a Day 1 Investigative Voting, but no real investigations otherwise. Stance is consistent with previous game.

Oddly Odd:
JJs Juggernaut - Voting Truthiness who reads townie to me. Does he have a good excuse?
CaribbeanNinja - States obvious things. Not contributing much to investigation.

Simply Scummy:

@JJs Juggernaut - What do you think about @Norell 's line of argument against a Day 1 vote? Does his level of activity and stance feel the same as last game?

@CaribbeanNinja - Do you find yourself agreeing with @Visovics 's suspicions of Truthiness? If so, or if not, why?

@Norell - Who looks the most scummy to you right now?

@ovinomanc3r - Who do you feel is suspicious for not posting as much as they probably could?

50 minutes ago, Visovics said:

Erm... it's not all random, it's an attempt to analyze all evidence we have up to now to try to clear a bit the image of who is loyal is who is a traitor, and right now you consistently trying to undermine this attempt may well come against you when we do that further on.

In simpler words: You are looking suspicious, so I'm keeping an eye open for your posts

I think I never was too fair judging people post frequency. I am usually bias depending on how contribute it to the discussion.

In that way I am fine with: @JJs Juggernaut , @Truthiness , @GhostofNobodyInParticular and @BiggsIRL

Barely fine with @Visovics , @Norell

Not too much with @CaribbeanNinja and @Onidsen

However, I would probably was with Visovics and Norell. On the other hand, Onidsen never shows himself too much.

Anyway I wouldn't take the number of post as a reference. For me what I put above is far for being a list of suspects in order from trustworthy to traitor.

Hmm... not sure what to think here. It is possible to be honestly opposed to D1 hangings. I think it's wrongheaded, and working against the village's best interests. But it's possible. On the other hand, it's a definite scum opinion. The scum generally want us not to daykill.

It's also interesting to watch how the discussion has developed. So much of the thread has been focused assertions whether or not to hang someone today. The worst kind of d1 kill is when we don't do anything till the last minute and then half - heartedly go after someone just because we think we ought to. That nets us almost no information, leaving us with only the numerical benefits I posted earlier.

With that said, @Truthiness , I find it odd that you didn't respond to my numbers earlier. Still, you give off a village read to me, despite your position.

@Norell on the other hand, had not given anywhere near enough justification. I'd like to hear more from them, when their time zone gets around to being right. And, to put pressure on that response:

##vote Norell

42 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

CaribbeanNinja - States obvious things. Not contributing much to investigation.

Regarding how Biggs and Truthiness are on my watch list:

5 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

This is my first hunch as well. Over eager beavers or traitors.

Yep. Even more obvious right now.

I am still currently of the opinion that Biggs and Truthiness are the ones who need the biggest scrutiny. Too strange on the first night.

Also - if it comes towards the end of the day and we lack a consensus, we can always get rid of @CaribbeanNinja for not contributing...

(I only have one vote to go around, CNinja. So be forewarned, if Norell comes back and gives a decent response, it's going on you)

Ninja'ed. Disregard my most recent post, CN

42 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

@CaribbeanNinja - Do you find yourself agreeing with @Visovics 's suspicions of Truthiness? If so, or if not, why?

As stated above, @Truthiness is definitely acting very strange. I can imagine him being a traitor (or a fool although that seems weird with only 9 people?)

Biggs seems over-aggressive, but that may be a result of putting the last two together and watching us have all of the fun.

It may just be nothing, but the first few posts between Truthiness and Biggs work too well in trying to get us to trust Truthiness. They could be a traitor collaboration.

17 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

Also - if it comes towards the end of the day and we lack a consensus, we can always get rid of @CaribbeanNinja for not contributing...

(I only have one vote to go around, CNinja. So be forewarned, if Norell comes back and gives a decent response, it's going on you)

If I didn't think that you are fair with us and wouldn't use your experience to lie us about balanced games I would think we have 3 traitors, you, biggs and truthines

29 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

As stated above, @Truthiness is definitely acting very strange. I can imagine him being a traitor (or a fool although that seems weird with only 9 people?)

Biggs seems over-aggressive, but that may be a result of putting the last two together and watching us have all of the fun.

It may just be nothing, but the first few posts between Truthiness and Biggs work too well in trying to get us to trust Truthiness. They could be a traitor collaboration.

Truthiness would call this kind of post "random flailing".....

14 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

If I didn't think that you are fair with us and wouldn't use your experience to lie us about balanced games I would think we have 3 traitors, you, biggs and truthines

If I were evil, I'd lie about a lot, but not about what made a game balanced. And I won't lie about RL stuff either, to try and get sympathy or avoid suspicion. That's just uncalled for.

I could maybe figure out a way to balance a 9 player 6v3 game, but it would be tough. Maybe some combination of a village vig kill and a village doc? Or 2 cops and start on a night turn? Dunno. It'd be tough and probably not worth it. I certainly wouldn't assume more than 2 scum in this game until we've seen Edgar the night looks like

1 hour ago, BiggsIRL said:

@JJs Juggernaut - What do you think about @Norell 's line of argument against a Day 1 vote? Does his level of activity and stance feel the same as last game?

It does seem similar so far, including his rather quiet approach. Curious how you ask me specifically, while I'm on your "Oddly Odd" list. You also asked if I had a good reason, which I already provided in my post in which I voted...

2 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

If I were evil, I'd lie about a lot, but not about what made a game balanced. And I won't lie about RL stuff either, to try and get sympathy or avoid suspicion. That's just uncalled for.

I could maybe figure out a way to balance a 9 player 6v3 game, but it would be tough. Maybe some combination of a village vig kill and a village doc? Or 2 cops and start on a night turn? Dunno. It'd be tough and probably not worth it. I certainly wouldn't assume more than 2 scum in this game until we've seen Edgar the night looks like

A thought, @Onidsen . What if the players that are most freaking out about our reasonable assumption of 2 scum are the scum themselves, freaking out that we somehow managed to guess their number?

1 minute ago, BiggsIRL said:

A thought, @Onidsen . What if the players that are most freaking out about our reasonable assumption of 2 scum are the scum themselves, freaking out that we somehow managed to guess their number?

... that's not a bad thought.

Definitely worth watching, and maybe putting a hammer on later if nobody else shows up as a good target

1 minute ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

It does seem similar so far, including his rather quiet approach. Curious how you ask me specifically, while I'm on your "Oddly Odd" list. You also asked if I had a good reason, which I already provided in my post in which I voted...

You're on my "OO" heading, so I'm gonna be bugging you with questions to get a better read.

Followup: Under what circumstances would you be willing to vote for yourself? This directly ties in to your vote on @Truthiness .